OUT OF JAIL
BUT STILL
NOT FREE
Experiences of temporary accommodation on leaving prison
Fiona McHardy
with Charlie Martin, David Kennedy, Maggie Munro and Robin Tennant
OUT OF JAIL BUT STILL NOT FREE
Experiences of temporary accommodation on leaving prison
Report Written by:
Fiona McHardy with Charlie Martin, David Kennedy,
Maggie Munro and Robin Tennant
Published by:
The Poverty Alliance
162 Buchanan Street,
Glasgow G1 2LL
Design by:
Cinch Ideas
www.cinchideas.com
Cover Photograph:
© A. Emejulu
Opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily
reflect those of the Poverty Alliance, its members,
Routes Out of Prison, the Wise Group or the Big
Lottery Fund.
The Poverty Alliance is a network of community,
voluntary, statutory and other organisations whose
vision is of a sustainable Scotland based on social and
economic justice, with dignity for all, where poverty
and inequalities are not tolerated and are challenged.
Our aim is to combat poverty by working with others
to empower individuals and communities to affect
change in the distribution of power and resources.
This project has received funding from the Big
Lottery Fund in Scotland under the Dynamic Inclusive
Communities Programme.
For further information
visit: www.povertyalliance.org
Or contact:
T: 0141 353 0440 | F: 0141 353 0686
E: [email protected]
The Poverty Alliance is recognised
as a charity by the Inland Revenue.
Reference No: SCO19926
www.povertyalliance.org
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CONTENTS
This research was funded by the Big Lottery Fund.
The research would not have been possible without
the contribution of volunteers from the Routes Out of
Prison project. A huge thank you to the community
research volunteers: Charlie Martin, Maggie Munro
and David Kennedy who have provided a tremendous
amount of commitment to this project. They have
provided crucial insights and conducted the research
with care and sensitivity. Thanks must also to George
Fisher who assisted with research data collection.
Thanks must also be given to Jamie McGregor (Life
Coach), James Renicks (Life Coach) Marie Simpson (Life
Coach) and Rita McGowan ( Life Coach) for assistance
in recruitment of participants for the research.
In addition, thanks to Laurie Russell CEO of the Wise
Group and to Morag Pryce (Programme Manager)
and Billy Sloan (Assistant Director of Delivery) for their
support and use of the Wise Group premises.
SECTION
Page No
Introduction
7
Section 1: Methodology
11
Section 2: Policy Context
15
Section 3: Pre release: Before leaving the Prison Gates
17
Section 4: Being released: the transition to reintegration
23
Section 5: Discussion: Improving Policy and Practice
33
Section 6: Conclusion and Recommendations
37
Appendix 1: The Housing Process
39
Thanks must also be given to staff at the Poverty
Alliance for their continued guidance and support to
this project, Peter Kelly, Robin Tennant, Sarah Welford,
Kathryn Collins and Poe McHugh.
The authors are grateful for the advice and support
of the EPiC Research Advisory Group: Professor Gill
Scott (Glasgow Caledonian University), Dr Nick Bailey
(University of Glasgow), Dr Nuala Gormely (Scottish
Government), Ruth Whatling (Scottish Government),
Dr Jim McCormack (Joseph Rowntree Foundation),
Robert Cuthbert (Scottish Community Development
Centre) and Christine Quigg (Community Activist) who
have provided many helpful insights and suggestions in
the course of this project. In addition particular thanks
to those who provided support with ethical guidance.
Thanks also to the EPiC Project Advisory Group.
Finally our thanks also go to the research participants
and stakeholders who contributed to this project by
taking part in interviews and discussions and provided
detailed and open contributions.
4
EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org
5
INTRODUCTION
6
EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org
7
This report focuses on the experiences of ten exoffenders, all part of the Wise Group’s Routes out of
Prison partnership (RooP), from across local authority
areas in the west of Scotland. All were homeless on
release from prison. Using a community research
approach, research was conducted into their
experiences of temporary accommodation on leaving
prison. The research set out to:
Scotland imprisons a higher proportion of its
population than almost anywhere else in Western
Europe.1 The numbers being imprisoned continues to
rise, partly due to the recent creation of new crimes
(such as breach of an anti-social behavior order).
The length of sentences is rising as the judiciary
imposes stricter penalties in crimes causing public
concern e.g. carrying a knife.
Poverty affects around one in five people in Scotland
today. However, some groups are more vulnerable to
poverty than others. People who have experienced
prison are more vulnerable to poverty both prior to
imprisonment and after release. Data on prisoners’
backgrounds shows that:
• Examine ex-offenders’ experiences of temporary
accommodation ;
However, a significant proportion of sentences are still
for relatively short periods of time. Data on persons
receiving a custodial sentence in 2009-10, 38%,
received a custodial sentence of three months or less
and 32% received a sentence of three to six months.2
Whilst the proportion of shorter sentences appears to
be declining, it is within the context of a continuing
increase in the number of sentences overall. Research
into reconviction rates for offenders within Scotland
shows 72% of people discharged from custody after
a short sentence of six months or less are reconvicted
within two years, compared with 25% of those who
served a sentence of four years or more.3 Short term
prison sentences are problematic if they are used
inappropriately. The Scottish Prisons Commission
(2008) noted that “Increased use of prisons is the result
of using it for those who are troubled and troubling
rather than dangerous. High prison populations do not
reduce crime; they are more likely to create pressures
that drive reoffending than to reduce it.”4 And whilst
re-offending can be the result of various pressures,
not having safe, affordable and stable housing on
release definitely plays a role. It is estimated that 30%
of those liberated from prison have nowhere to live on
release.5 The Social Exclusion Unit highlighted (2002:96)
that “research suggests that stable accommodation
can make a difference of over 20% reduction in
reconviction.”6
• 65% have the numeracy skills of an 11 year old
• Understand how experiences of temporary
accommodation affected the transition to
permanent housing ;
• Discover best practice in the provision of temporary
accommodation ;
• Provide policy recommendations which could
alleviate poverty amongst ex-offenders.
The key findings of this research were:
• Obtaining good housing is a cornerstone for
individual well-being.
• This housing must be appropriate for the individual’s
needs and circumstances.
• Unsuitable or poor temporary accommodation
impacts negatively on reintegration and
rehabilitation.
• Hostel accommodation is rarely suitable for ex offenders, especially for those with drug and alcohol
problems.
• 80% have the writing skills of an 11 year old
• 50% have the reading skills of an 11 year old
• 70% have used drugs before coming to prison
• 70% have suffered from at least two mental disorders
• 20% of male prisoners have previously attempted
suicide
• 37% of women prisoners have attempted suicide
• 90% of women in prison have drug and alcohol
problems, and
• 75% have a history of abuse and major health
problems.7
Issues such as unemployment; low pay; debt; poor,
insecure or unaffordable housing; low educational
attainment; lack of access to education and training;
physical or mental health problems; are all dimensions
of poverty and all play a role. Whilst these issues
affect most people living on low incomes, for people
with experience of the criminal justice system these
problems are often exacerbated as a result of their
imprisonment.
The main body of this report is divided into five
sections. Section 1 looks at methodology and the role
of using participatory approaches when researching
with vulnerable groups. Section 2 examines the policy
contexts in relation to temporary housing and to exoffenders. Section 3 examines housing circumstances
prior to imprisonment, throughcare experiences,
and expectations of housing after release. Section
4 considers release and its aftermath, including
the barriers to stability and reintegration. Section 5
discusses key challenges identified by interviews and
stakeholders. Section 6 outlines the conclusions of the
research and makes some recommendations for policy
and practice in relation to ex-offenders and housing.
• Those whose housing circumstances had been
unstable before incarceration were the most
apprehensive about housing after release.
• Housing services and support varied across
local authorities; in general, however, support for
ex-offenders was poorly integrated across service
providers.
• Advocacy services for ex-offenders are crucial,
especially in the period immediately after release.
• Delays in the welfare benefits system represent a
serious failing and result in some ex-offenders having
no money and or running up debts. For example, it
can take between six to eight weeks before someone
leaving prison receives full benefits.
1 Scottish Government (2010) Statistical Bulletin Crime and Justice Series: Prison Statistics Scotland: 2009-10, [online]
Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/12/15154652/3 [Accessed:14/4/2011].
2 Scottish Government (2010) Statistical Bulletin: Crime and Justice Series: Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, 2009-10, [online]
Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/01/20092640/19 [Accessed: 02/1/2011].
3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/08/27112240/2 cited in The Prison Reform Trust (2010) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile December 2010, [online]
Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/FactfileDec10small.pdf [Accessed: 20/1/2011
4 Scottish Prisons Commission Report (2008) ‘Scotland’s Choice’ p2
5 Niven, S. and Stewart, D. (2005) Resettlement outcomes on release from prison, Home Office Findings 248, London: Home Office cited in The Prison Reform Trust
(2010) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile December 2010, [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/FactfileDec10small.pdf
6 Social Exclusion Unit (2002). ‘Reducing Reoffending by exprisoners’. London: Social Exclusion Unit p96
7 Scottish Prisons Commission Report (2008) ‘Scotland’s Choice’ p16
8
EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org
9
SECTION 1:
METHODOLOGY
10 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 11
This research focused on exploring the following key
question: On leaving prison as homeless, what are
people’s experiences of temporary accommodation in
the West of Scotland?
The research objectives were to:
• Examine ex-offenders’ experiences of temporary
accommodation.
• Contribute to evidence on the experience of
temporary accommodation affects the transition to
permanent housing.
• Identify best practice in service delivery of temporary
accommodation
and
• Provide policy recommendations to address poverty
amongst ex-offenders.
This research adds to existing studies of how
people experience homelessness and temporary
accommodation in Scotland. Due to the scale of
the study this study cannot be viewed as to be fully
representative. Instead, it provides a snapshot of the
experiences of ex-offenders and the barriers they face
in the current economic and political climate.
Approach:
This research was carried out by The Poverty Alliance in
partnership with the Wise Group’s Routes out of Prison
project (RooP).8 The community researchers were drawn
from volunteers from the Routes out of Prison project.
The volunteer researchers underwent training on the
designing and conducting of research. Training focused
on: Understanding the issues, Research Methods,
Designing research, Reflexive practice, Entering the
field, Data collection, Data analysis, Writing research
reports and Developing a research action plan.
The volunteer research group worked with service users
to map initial poverty issues in relation to pre- prison,
prison and post-prison contexts. This map yielded a
shortlist of the most recurring issues. This shortlist was
then drawn onto topic cards which clustered issues and
were illustrated with pictorial methods. Topic cards
included a section for open ended responses to allow
for further topics to be identified. Topic card surveying
was then undertaken with RooP service users who were
encouraged to think of any additional topics. They
were then asked to prioritise three topics in order of
importance for research on the subject they felt should
be explored through the research.
In total 15 responses were obtained from service users.
All of the service users engaged in this process were
male. Responses came from a number of geographical
areas, service user responses ranged from four local
authority areas: Glasgow City (2), Renfrewshire (5),
North Ayrshire (7) and West Dunbartonshire (1). Using
this approach gave RooP service users decisive input
into the topic of research.
Based on the results of this survey, the volunteers opted
to explore the experiences of homeless ex-prisoners
in temporary accommodation through semi-structured
interviews with ten ex-offenders. In addition, the
researchers organised a stakeholder discussion group
and one-to-one interviews. This involved five workers
from organizations working with ex offenders.
Participants were recruited from the following local
authority areas: Glasgow (3) East Ayrshire (2), North
Ayrshire (2), Renfrewshire (1) North Lanarkshire ( 1)
and South Lanarkshire (1). All of the participants in the
research had been assessed as homeless and in priority
need. The profile of participants is outlined in the tables
below and a breakdown of participants’ details is as
follows
Table 1: Age Profile
Age of Participants
% of sample (n)
25-34
40 % (4)
35-44
40% (4)
45-54
10% (1)
55-64
10% (1)
Total 100% (10)
Interviews and discussions were transcribed, analysed
and thematically coded. This was carried out in
conjunction with volunteers from Routes out of Prison.
The report has also been written with their input. The
personal qualities and professional experience of the
volunteers helped to ensure that the research process
was grounded in the views of those with experience
of the issues of homelessness and ex-offenders.
This approach assisted greatly when working with
a vulnerable or hard to reach group such as former
prisoners. By drawing upon their personal and
professional experiences, the volunteer group have
been able to ensure that the research was conducted
with sensitivity and incorporated the experiences of the
participants effectively. Using the initial stage of the
research (the topic cards described above) ensured that
the views of ex-prisoners actively informed the focus of
the research.
Table 2: Disability Profile
Participants describing
disability according to
terms of DDA % of sample (n)
Yes 30 % (3)
No
70 % (7)
Table 3: Type of Impairment
Type of impairment % of sample (n)
Physical impairment 20 % (1)
Sensory impairment 0%
Mental health condition
80 % (4)
Learning disability 0%
Long standing illness or condition
60% (3)
Other disfigurement 0%
Prefer not to say
20%
100% (5)
Table 4: Gender Breakdown
Gender % of sample (n)
Male 80% (8)
Female 20% (2)
100% (10)
8 RooP is a partnership with the Wise Group as a lead agency working with Scottish Prison Services, Apex Scotland and Families Outside.
For more information please see http://www.thewisegroup.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s5_2_1
12 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 13
SECTION 2:
POLICY CONTEXT
14 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 15
Housing is a devolved matter within Scotland. The
Scottish Parliament has passed a substantial amount of
progressive legislation, especially The Homelessness
etc. (Scotland) Act 2003, which reshaped housing and
homelessness policy in Scotland:
“The Act introduces a change of culture, concentrating
available resources on rehousing homeless people
successfully, rather than investigating whether they can
be rationed out of the system”9
The Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 extended
the categories of homeless individuals and families
viewed as being in priority need (and therefore entitled
to suitably permanent housing) and introduced a
target that all unintentionally homeless households will
be entitled to this by 201210. Progress is being made
towards ensuring that all socially rented housing will
meet a minimum quality standard by 2015. Scotland’s
policy on homelessness has been praised as being
amongst the most progressive in Europe.
However, these progressive policies and the housing
sector more generally have come under increasing
pressure owing to housing shortages and the
recession. Family breakdown, unemployment, an
ageing population and other demographic factors
have increased the demand for social housing. Long
waiting lists for council and housing association
accommodation are the result. Shortages have
worsened during the recession, with its high and rising
levels of unemployment and rising home repossessions.
In the light of the economic downturn and cuts to
welfare and service budgets, pressures on housing are
likely to increase12.
Figures on homeless applications in the period of
April to September 2010 across local authorities,
found that around 4% of those applying for homeless
accommodation had been due to discharge from
prison, hospital, care or some other institution13.
More generally, survey research conducted on prisoner
resettlement indicates that around 30% of people
released from prison are homeless14. Along with other
issues, this correlation between homelessness and
leaving prison makes ex-prisoners a vulnerable group.
Homeless people almost invariably require temporary
accommodation while a decision is awaited on their
homeless application and while waiting for an offer
of permanent housing. Temporary accommodation
was already under pressure prior to the major
public spending cuts. Figures for December 2010,
indicated there were 10,952 households in temporary
accommodation in Scotland. This was an increase of
674 households (6 per cent) from December 200915. It is
not yet known if public spending cuts may reduce the
quantity and quality of temporary accommodation on
offer from local authorities.
SECTION 3:
BEFORE LEAVING THE PRISON GATES
In addition, homeless people often require housing
support which meets their needs. Some housing
support workers are employed by local authorities;
others by voluntary sector organisations. The impact
on services such as these is also unclear due to public
spending cuts is also unclear.
Scotland Housing and ex-prisoners
Housing has been recognised to be a key issue facing
prisoners before and after release. As the Scottish
Prison Service has stated “acquiring and maintaining
accommodation is a key factor in resettlement for
offenders and a critical part of rehabilitation”16.
Local authorities and various agencies across Scotland
work in partnership with prisons to assist with prisoners’
needs on release, such as addiction support and
housing support. Through-care services are delivered
by a wide range of service providers (including
voluntary and statutory agencies) that work inside and
outside the prison.
This provision is regulated by law and certain categories
of prisoners must engage with support. “In Scotland,
local authorities have a statutory responsibility to
provide throughcare services to offenders sentenced to
prison terms of over 4 years and for those sentenced to
Supervised Release Orders and Extended Sentences.
Local authorities also have statutory responsibility
to offer voluntary aftercare to other prisoners in the
first 12 months of their release from prison” (Criminal
Justice Social Work Scotland)17 although the take up
of voluntary throughcare is low. Recent reviews of
thoroughcare have seen the introduction of systems
such as the Integrated Case Management (ICM)
system. ICM is a multi-agency approach that is focused
on reducing re-offending.18
9 Scottish Council for Single Homeless (2006) SCSH Briefing Homelessness etc . (Scotland) Act 2003, [online]
Available at: http://www.scsh.co.uk/information/briefings briefing_12.htm [Accessed: 14/4/2011].
10 Council of Scottish Local Authorities (nd) The 2012 Homeless Steering Group [online]
Available at: http://www.cosla.gov.uk/attachments/execgroups/cw/cw100301item07.doc [Accessed 10/4/2011]
11 Seenan, G. (2003) Scotland moves to end homelessness, The Guardian , 6th March, [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/06/housing.scotland
12 Ogilvie, D, (2010). Housing & Poverty: Making a Difference in Scotland. In Poverty Alliance European Preparation Meeting Seminar . Greenock , 12th of May 2010.
13 Office of National Statistics (2011) Homeless persons legislation in Scotland, [online]
Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/03/08094006 [Accessed: 10/4/2011].
14 Niven, S. and Stewart, D. (2005) Resettlement outcomes on release from prison, Home Office Findings 248, London: Home Office cited in The Prison Reform Trust (2010) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile December 2010, [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/FactfileDec10small.pdf
15 Office of National Statistics (2011) Homeless persons legislation in Scotland, [online]
Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/03/08094006 [Accessed: 10/4/2011].
16 SPS Making a Difference Brochure cited in Reid Howie Associates Ltd (2004) ‘The Provision of Housing Advice to Prisoners in Scotland: An Evaluation of the Projects funded by the Rough Sleepers Initiative’
17 Criminal Justice Social Work ‘ Throughcare Aftercare’ [online] Available at http://www.cjsw.ac.uk/cjsw/110.html Accessed: 10/1/2011
18 Scottish Prison Service Website ‘Friends and Families Information’[online]
Available at http://www.sps.gov.uk/default.aspx?documentid=b7e48be8-6594-4672-a4a9-3d3a27bf0470
16 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 17
Summary
Housing circumstances prior to prison
Expectations of Housing Provision Prior to Release
Importance of housing
This section explores and highlights issues and housing
experiences of ex- prisoners prior to release.
Research interviewees were from a wide variety of
housing circumstances prior to imprisonment. Some
had been in permanent rented housing. Other
participants had already been in the homeless system
for example housed in temporary accommodation
such as hostels or temporary furnished flats19. Others
had been in even more insecure circumstances, staying
short-term (frequently on an overcrowded basis) with
friends or relatives, a practice known as “sofa surfing”.
Sofa surfing is a term widely used to refer to people
staying at friends or family and being part of the hidden
homeless population. Such experiences are typical of
those who have been in prison. Research conducted on
housing experience in England has shown has shown
that 15% of men, 19% of women and 10 % of young
people were not in permanent accommodation before
entering custody20.
Housing on release was a key concern amongst
interviewees and apprehension about where they
would live upon release was frequently discussed. For
those who had served longer sentences or for first time
offenders there were heightened levels of concern.
Institutionalisation and the lack of confidence this
induced were cited as a key factors.
Safe, secure and stable accommodation upon release
was a priority for both interviewees and stakeholders.
This was seen as fundamental for rehabilitation,
especially for reintegration into the community and a
stable lifestyle.
• Within the study sample ex-prisoners came from a
range of housing circumstances. Many had previously
experienced homelessness prior to imprisonment.
• Expectations of housing provision after release
were mixed, with those who had experienced longer
sentences highlighting particular concerns about
obtaining accommodation and about difficulties in
coping due to institutionalization.
• Service provision prior to release varied with
geographical factors which affected the assistance
individuals had received within the prison.
Those who had experienced instability in housing
prior to incarceration expressed the most fear and
apprehension regarding their housing circumstances
when released. This was compounded by many
participants expressing concerns at the lack of support
prior to release, although one participant did praise
highly the housing support service received. This
participant’s experience emphasised the importance of
a personalised approach within (and outside) the prison
giving advice to particular practical needs.
This was supported by evidence from stakeholder
agencies, emphasizing that more was required in terms
of preparing people for release. In particular for those
serving longer term sentences (say, two or three years),
it was felt that greater support was needed due to the
level of institutionalisation experienced.
“I have been in and out of jail, a lot of people say
that you are institutionalised you are this, you are
that, sometimes I feel that way because I have
found it hard”. (Interviewee)
“I was scared, even a few nights before I came out
the prison I was scared”. (Interviewee)
Worryingly, some research interviewees had expressed
very low expectations about the homeless system. One
participant had expected to sleep rough on leaving
prison despite prison leavers being a priority group
under The Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003.
“I was quite stressed out because this was my
second time , the first time just went to the same ,
just had to skipper for a week before I got into a
tenancy”. (Interviewee) 21
This was reinforced during discussions with
stakeholders who stated that if the offer of
accommodation on release was not deemed
appropriate to the individual’s needs, they would seek
alternative accommodation or sleep rough to avoid
this.
“Some of them have refused to go to these places
…. and will sofa surf if they can or sleep on the
street rather than go into the most undesirable of
places”. (Stakeholder)
Stakeholder discussions on the subject of expectations
were mixed. It was felt that some individuals had
extremely unrealistic expectations of housing provision,
and of the homelessness process given the availability
of accommodation and length of waiting lists in more
desirable areas. Others highlighted that some people
had very low expectations.
“Some of them don’t bother presenting to the
homeless system as they think they aren’t going to
get anything”. (Stakeholder)
19 a temporary furnished flat is a council or housing association flat which is furnished and let to one homeless household after another. Local authorities sometimes refer to these flats as “scatter flats” or “dispersed properties” as there should be a network of flats spread across a wide geographical area rather than a ghettoising concentration in a single area.
21 Skipper is a slang term meaning to sleep rough.
20 Stewart, D. (2008) ‘The Problems and Needs of newly sentenced prisoners, results from a national survey’, London , Ministry of Justice.
22 NACRO (1999) ‘ Going Home Straight’
EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
For this process to be effective, accommodation had
to be personalised and appropriate for the individual’s
needs and circumstances. Failure to address this
would hamper reintegration and rehabilitation as this
stakeholder highlighted.
“The theory about reintegration is brilliant, but
the crucial starting point is trying to establish
secure accommodation for people who have been
predominantly chaotic and unstable in terms of
their previous lifestyle”. (Stakeholder)
Inappropriate access to housing had far reaching
consequences in terms of supporting individuals, for
example getting help with addictions, mental health
support, obtaining benefits and maintaining support
networks. This is supported by research conducted
in England by NACRO (1999)22 into the relationship
between accommodation and reoffending.
The relationship between housing and health was a key
theme. Specific needs of offenders could affect which
type of accommodation they required, for example
those with a disability or illness. One participant
described requiring specialized accommodation due
to illness and having problems accessing this despite
medical certification stating the specific requirements
for accommodation. This had resulted in the need for
advocacy support regarding this issue.
During stakeholder discussions the importance of
ensuring people could access appropriate support for
their health needs was emphasised.
“The single most important priority is suitable
accommodation and suitable support to manage
a tenancy. It’s absolutely crucial in terms of
linking people into services if they don’t have
accommodation prior to release then you have
difficulty linking them to a GP , you have difficulty
linking them into appropriate methadone
programmes”. (Stakeholder)
www.povertyalliance.org
Service Provision Prior to release.
Various agencies across Scotland work in partnership
with prisons to assist with prisoners’ needs on release
such as addiction support and housing support.
Through-care services are delivered by a wide range
of service providers including voluntary and statutory
agencies that work inside and outside the prison.
Through-care provision is variable between prisons and
between the local authority areas into which prisoners
are released. It is important to recognise that the
research did not seek to explore experiences of prison
through-care directly. Research participants did discuss
this, but their comments must be interpreted with
caution.
Within the study, all interviewees were from a prison
which contained a Community Link Centre as part of
preparation for release. These centres provide prisoners
with access to support services for example access
to housing support services, mental health support
services, addiction support and Jobcentre Plus to
enable prisoners to start dealing with the issues they
will face on release.
Prisoners will serve their sentence in different categories
of prison depending on the sentence passed.
Scotland’s prisons are located across the country,
although with the majority located in the central belt.
As a result, prisoners may be incarcerated far away from
where they live, in a different local authority area from
where they lived prior to imprisonment.
“See the wummin from housing , she says there
was nothing I could do, I asked if I could put in
an appointment on for the day I got out for the
housing and she said I wouldn’t be able to do
that.” (Interviewee)
In addition, many research participants emphasised
the value of the support they had received from RooP
Prison Life Coaches prior to release. Life Coaches aim
to provide a holistic service dealing with barriers to
resettlement including homelessness.
Geographical issues were highlighted: one participant
expressed being unable to access any support
from the relevant local authority prior to release,
precipitating stress and anxiety. Another research
participant’s experience was of the local authority
attempting to contact them whilst in prison regarding
their housing situation but being unable to do so,
resulting in problems with their housing on release.
One participant described through-care support that
they had accessed in prison providing no assistance on
release.
Discussion with stakeholders strongly indicated that
more should be done to prepare prisoners for release.
Some stated that although there had been great
improvements within prison, more was needed to
build upon prison policies such as the Integrated Case
Management (ICM) system. ICM is a multi-agency
approach that is focused on reducing re-offending24.
This connects prisoners with services which assist with
them on release. Despite ICM, some stakeholders felt
that information sharing remained patchy.
“I don’t think they have contacted me once since I
have been out that door”. (Interviewee)
Those with support networks (especially family
members) had used them to access advice on housing
support. They reported a more positive experience,
for example a family member being able to arrange a
meeting with housing staff within the prison. Another
participant emphasised how useful the housing service
in prison had been.
“Staff were alright that helped me in the jail……
he was the one that helped me get all this house
sorted out”.(Interviewee)
Research participants were asked to describe the
support they had received within the prison with
regards to their housing needs on release. The
responses indicated that individuals had wide ranging
experiences of assistance and support within the
prison. While, nearly all research participants referred
to having had contact with housing staff within prisons,
some had limited or no contact with housing staff.
Examples were given of housing providers having
people present as homeless with no prior notification
they were being released to that local authority.
Stakeholders emphasized the need for more and better
partnership working and preparation with agencies
prior to prisoners’ release, although it was highlighted
that in some situations there were issues with resources
in service provision. The benefits of greater information
sharing were emphasised as this stakeholder indicates:
“Agencies need to be sharing information, put
everything in a core location and make prisons
more open and receptive”. (Stakeholder)
One stakeholder suggested that prison should look
towards other systems of support (such as the protocols
implemented in hospitals in the form of discharge
assessments) for more effective support.
Issues outlined by interviewees included being unable
to get access to the appropriate staff from their local
authority at the pre-release stage23, receiving limited
support and only given phone numbers to contact on
release.
One participant described their experiences in the
Community Link Centre in a negative way. They were
advised they would not be able to contact their local
Housing Office to arrange an appointment until
immediately after release and would therefore have to
address this on day of release. This resulted in them
having to actively seek out support and self refer to
agencies for through care assistance.
23 This is a crucial stage of a prisoner’s sentence, normally four to six weeks before liberation, at which there is the opportunity to meet one-to-one with a range of staff in the Link Centre
20 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
24 Scottish Prison Service Website ( http://www.sps.gov.uk/default.aspx?documentid=b7e48be8-6594-4672-a4a9-3d3a27bf0470
www.povertyalliance.org 21
SECTION 4:
BEING RELEASED: THE TRANSITION
TO REINTEGRATION
22 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 23
Summary
Experiences of housing provision
It is widely recognised that being released from prison
is a critical time for individuals, in particular for those
who have served longer term sentences. This section
explores the experiences and the challenges and
barriers faced by prisoners upon release.
The first few weeks after being released from prison
entail significant challenges for former prisoners. It is
viewed by both them and stakeholders as a crucial time
for gaining stability.
• A myriad of factors affected former prisoners’
experiences of housing including the location of
accommodation and the suitability for their needs.
• Hostel accommodation was viewed as problematic
by both interviewees and stakeholders.
• Significant financial difficulties were often
experienced upon release such as delays in receiving
benefits.
• Transition to a permanent tenancy was problematic
and was a period requiring further support.
“If there’s no support available for people they are
going to come out the gate … and go to the off
sales and then they are likely to reoffend in the first
week of liberation”. (Stakeholder)
The findings indicate a range of factors that shaped
individuals’ experiences of housing. These included
service variations across local authorities, availability of
social housing, type and suitability of accommodation
and treatment by service providers. Leaving prison
represents a significant transitional stage that all almost
all research interviewees found difficult and stressful.
Participants spoke openly about the impact on
their mental health of entering, and in some cases
re-entering, the homeless system. For some the
uncertainty about what would happen to them on
release was particularly hard to bear:
“I was coming out the prison and I didn’t know
where the hell they were going to put me, they
could have put me on the moon do you know what
I mean”. (Interviewee)
After release, some participants initially stayed
with family members but then had to leave due to
overcrowding. Others presented to the homeless
team in their local authority area and were allocated
temporary accommodation (a place in a hostel or
a temporary furnished flat). No one interviewed in
the study had been given specialized supported
accommodation. Research participants’ experiences
of temporary accommodation were a mixture of
the positive and the negative. The location of
accommodation was cited as a key determinant
of its suitability. There was a strong preference for
accommodation that allowed people to re-establish
and maintain support networks such as family and
friends. A considerable body of previous research has
shown that the maintenance of support networks is a
crucial factor in reducing re-offending25.
Several participants emphasised that temporary
accommodation was vital in maintaining relationships
with their children. An example of good practice was
indicated by a participant who described being able
to have children stay with them in the accommodation
which was important in rebuilding family relationships.
Other interviewees experienced barriers (such as
transport costs and restrictions on visitors) to suitability
of accommodation in maintaining social relationships
and family ties. One participant spoke of the additional
costs of travel they faced in travelling to visit their child
to continue family relationships as their temporary
accommodation was unsuitable for their child to visit.
Other barriers included the restrictions imposed by
territoriality in the west of Scotland and a reluctance to
return to an area where they had previously offended or
where they wished to avoid gang culture.
Housing suitability was raised as a key concern by a
number of interviewees. Options given to research
participants were usually limited and in some cases
inappropriate; in a number of cases, no alternative
accommodation was offered. Several participants
described the importance of advocacy when dealing
with housing officers in ensuring that their rights
were met. One participant described being told
that there were no temporary flats available and
so their only option was a hostel. This decision was
reconsidered only when someone advocated on their
behalf that hostel accommodation was fundamentally
inappropriate.
Some participants felt they faced stigma and
discrimination through having been in prison. One
participant described an example of discrimination by
housing staff and being told:
“I have problems in area X, I cannae stay in area
X”.(Interviewee)
“Well if you have been in prison you can stay
anywhere” (Interviewee)
Stakeholders supported the view that ensuring people
were provided with accommodation in appropriate
areas was crucial but acknowledged the limitations for
service providers in being able to meet this need.
Others, however, highlighted the importance of
being treated well by staff and praised staff who had
recognised them as individuals and who had been
supportive of them.
“These are huge issues not only for the client but
also for the services supporting them as they may
have accommodation but they can’t allocate it to
the client”.(Stakeholder)
Reflecting this, stakeholders discussed the risk of
destabilising individuals and hampering reintegration
by putting them into areas where they had previously
had problems. In particular, stakeholders stressed that
for those with addictions, this could present challenges
in maintaining abstinence.
“I used to ask for him all the time as I had built up a
good relationship with him” (Interviewee)
Being informed of how their housing application is
progressing is important for homeless people. There
was great variation in how much information was
provided to participants. Some highlighted being
given clear and useful information on the waiting time
they could expect before being moved into better
accommodation (for example from a hostel to a
temporary furnished flat).
However, this was not the case for all participants.
One individual described their experience of having
to present to a local housing office on a daily basis
until temporary accommodation became available.
Although not the case for all participants this was
an example of inlawful practice. (Refusing interim
accommodation (hostel, B & B hotel or furnished flat) to
someone who presents as homeless and completes a
homeless application is unlawful under section 29 of the
Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 as amended).
25 Ministry of Justice and Department for Children , Schools and Families ( 2009) ‘Reducing reoffending supporting families, creating better futures’ , London, Ministry of
Justice cited in Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile December 2010, [online] Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/FactfileDec10small.pdf
24 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 25
The availability of social housing varies across local
authorities, depending on the overall stock of social
housing, level of demand, turnover of tenants and
management systems employed to manage of the
housing stock. Stakeholders discussed the availability
of social housing, acknowledging that demand clearly
outstrips supply and that the shortage will worsen
during the recession and through public spending cuts.
“They are demolishing housing without rebuilding,
we have got to have something, cutbacks on public
housing and public services mean workers are
juggling and plate spinning” (Stakeholder)
“It’s about availability and it’s about social policy
and unless issues are addressed at a government
level these issues will increase”. (Stakeholder)
One stakeholder stressed that the particular shortage
of supported accommodation was challenging, given
the need for help with independent living skills among
people requiring this accommodation.
“There’s a real shortage of supported tenancies
particularly for people with no skills managing
money, cooking …and it’s not always appropriate
that they have an unsupported tenancy”.
(Stakeholder)
Treatment by service providers was crucial in shaping
interviewees’ views of the housing system. The
complexity of the housing system meant that many
interviewees were unsure of their rights and were
dependent on housing officers and housing support
staff for knowledge and guidance. For vulnerable
people this could cause problems:
“If they think they are dealing with somebody that
knows what they are talking about, they treat you
differently”. (Interviewee)
“X did the talking for me and things moved from
that whereas I have spoken to other people who
were homeless who were getting told we can’t do
anything for you”. (Interviewee)
The importance of continuity, e.g. dealing with the
same worker, was emphasized by interviewees and
stakeholders.
“They get to know you and you get to trust them”.
(Interviewee)
Stakeholders discussed that when working with a
group which is hard to reach and engage with and can
be mistrustful (such as former prisoners) workers need
to be honest and realistic about how much assistance
can be provided. Keeping service users informed in
the community can be challenging owing to literacy
difficulties. In addition, a service user may not have a
phone or may not have credit in their phone. Issues
around data protection may also play a part on what
information stakeholders are given on those they are
working with.
Being released: Experiences of temporary
accommodation and the transition to a tenancy
Participants were asked to describe their experiences of
temporary accommodation and their journey through
the homeless system. Several interviewees were at
the stage of having an offer of a permanent tenancy,
while others were still in temporary accommodation.
As with temporary accommodation, there are issues
with high demand for, and lack of availability of,
permanent housing. Within the housing system, the
offer of permanent accommodation is dependent on
availability and demand within the local authority area.
The study reflected the variety of purposes served
by temporary accommodation. For example, as
accommodation during the initial period when
assessment is being made; as a final outcome for
households assessed as non priority or intentionally
homeless; and as a holding solution to those who are
owed a duty of permanent accommodation but are
waiting for this to be made available26’
Stakeholders viewed the transitional period of
temporary accommodation as a problematic stage
for people who had experienced prison. Barriers
and challenges were illustrated by both stakeholders
and interview participants. Issues were far reaching
and multi faceted, reflecting the often complex and
multiple needs of people who have experienced prison
and the challenges they face in reintegrating into the
community (such as institutionalisation and substance
misuse).
Experiences of different types of accommodation
The type of temporary accommodation provided
should be based on an assessment of the homeless
person’s needs. The options for temporary
accommodation include a temporary furnished
flat, house or bedsit; a hostel or homeless persons
unit; or a bed and breakfast hotel or guesthouse27.
Accommodation is normally owned and managed by
the local authority; but sometimes properties owned by
housing associations or private landlords are used.
Interviewees had been in various forms of temporary
accommodation such as hostels and temporary
furnished flats. No one interviewed in the study had
been given supported accommodation.
Service users’ experiences and views of hostel
accommodation were predominantly negative.
Stakeholders were divided on the benefits that hostel
accommodation provided. While some stakeholders
viewed it as safe and secure accommodation with
support staff on hand, there was concern about an
excessively regulated environment:
“They don’t like the hostel because there are rules
there, there are curfews, they are just out of prison
and maybe they feel like that it’s too much like
that”.(Stakeholder)
Research participants spoke of the similarities between
prison and hostel accommodation in terms of the
regulation and institutional similarities.
“I was very scared to come down the stairs as it was
all cameras and all the rest of it and it just reminded
me of prison, and doing their room checks and
all that it just totally reminded me of prison”.
(Interviewee)
“I often find the person has been informed but
they have not necessarily understood what the
information has been given to them, it’s not always
checked they understand what they have been
told” (Stakeholder)
One participant spoke of ‘sofa-surfing’ rather than
utilising hostel accommodation. Another spoke of
their hostel accommodation being unsuitable for
family members to visit. This limited the opportunity to
interact with family and rebuild relationships with them.
For some who were repeat offenders, or had
previously engaged with the homeless system, it
was felt that service providers simply assumed that
people were familiar with housing procedures and
frameworks. Often, however, there is ignorance or
misunderstanding.
Although no specific question on this was posed,
no interviewees mentioned awareness of the legal
obligations of housing services and housing providers.
Some had limited knowledge of their rights and spoke
of how advocacy workers, such as RooP Life Coaches,
had helped ensure their rights were met.
26 Shelter (2009) ‘Briefing , Raising the Standards of temporary accommodation’ [online] Available www.shelter.org.uk
27 See appendix for diagram of housing process.
26 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 27
Some stakeholders argued that hostel accommodation
was simply not suitable for most people who have
experienced prison, in part because of the social
problems of other hostel residents. One stakeholder
stressed that people were actively targeted within
hostels by drug dealers; and for interviewees, the use of
alcohol and drugs within the hostel was a major issue.
“Loads of syringes outside the window”.
(Interviewee)
“I didn’t like it because there were always people
coming and going looking for drugs and stuff like
that”.(Interviewee)
In general, participants felt that temporary
accommodation was of a habitable standard and
that the public areas of hostel accommodation
were kept clean. However one participant criticised
shared cooking facilities as being unfit for purpose
and unhygienic due to a lack of care by other hostel
residents.
Participants who were placed in or moved into
temporary furnished flats had more positive
experiences. However one interviewee described
problems of anti-social behaviour within this type of
accommodation, which is sometimes referred to as
scatter flats. They told of being accommodated in a
block with a number of other homeless households and
having difficulties with these households and with local
people:
“They see people with scatterflats as party dens
and on Friday and Saturday night they just boot
your door in”. (Interviewee)
Across both hostel accommodation and scatter flats,
there was consensus amongst stakeholders and
interviewees around isolation and boredom:
“Clients tell you the boredom of being in these
homeless accommodations doing nothing all
day. Every day the temptation is too great”
(Stakeholder)
“Keeping the door open …. Let them know you are
always there”. (Stakeholder)
“if they have mental health issues , they can
disengage and become very disillusioned”.
(Stakeholder)
Both interviewees and stakeholders expressed
concerns about institutionalisation.
“ the main challenges are that they are used to
people doing things for them. It’s like people
coming out the armed forces – it is challenging”.
(Stakeholder)
Institutionalisation was seen as a problem for those
serving short term and long term sentences. For some,
this resulted in loss of confidence and a negative
impact on their mental health. One interviewee who
had served multiple sentences discussed how this had
affected their ability to reintegrate into community life.
“See to be honest it’s hard to reintegrate myself
back into society especially when I have done
crimes”.(Interviewee)
Stakeholders articulated the need for consistent and
thorough support during temporary accommodation.
This is viewed as a crucial stage in preventing
reoffending. Reference was made to the phenomenon
of “the revolving door”, a term describing the waste of
a life entailed in recidivism and repeat homelessness.
The high costs of reoffending were highlighted; the
targeting of support to reduce reoffending would be
good value for money in saving the high costs of
imprisonment. The estimated cost of housing someone
in prison is between £31,000 to £40,00028.
In some local authority areas a very high standard of
housing support services were provided in an intensive
way to meet needs. This support would be extended if
there was evidence of need by front line workers. This
was considered to be best practice.
Some stakeholders discussed the isolation people
experienced in homeless accommodation and the
impact of this on mental health. Support throughout
any stay in temporary accommodation was seen as vital
this time period was viewed as crucial in maintaining
motivation and mental health.
Being released: financial barriers
All participants were experiencing financial difficulties,
such as fuel poverty, financial exclusion and other
barriers related to living on a low income. Stakeholders
acknowledged that financial difficulties could lead
service users to disengage from services.
“a lot of accommodations have a rule that they
don’t pass messages on and they don’t tell even
tell the client that someone has phoned for them
and because of their financial issues they don’t have
phones , you can’t send a letter as they may not
receive it”. (Stakeholder)
A further barrier was service users being unable to
access services through not having enough money to
attend meetings.
On release from prison, a discharge grant is issued. This
grant is money to assist with living expenses for the first
week after prison29. This is intended to provide money
until the receipt of welfare benefits. The transition
from this grant to benefits is problematic. Interviewees
spoke of waiting a number of weeks for payments to
be received and how this delay led them into debt
or forced them to depend on friends and family.
Difficulties in obtaining identification were highlighted
as worsening delays.
For those who were rough sleeping and for those who
were part of the ‘hidden homeless population’ or sofa
surfing, the extreme insecurity of their housing created
further barriers when applying for benefits.
Both interviewees and stakeholders were concerned
about the adequacy of the benefit system. Findings
discussed the levels of benefits being unsuitable to
access their needs and the impact this had on for
example the mental health of individuals.
“People not coping, living a hand to mouth
existence makes people depressed.” (Stakeholder)
“I know for some people 6 to 8 weeks is a quick
turnaround but for these people they live hand to
mouth it’s a lifetime”. (Stakeholder)
Identification issues were also highlighted in the various
steps people have as they go through the homeless
system and the impact this has on claiming welfare
benefits such as delays in processing information as the
person moves through the stages of the homeless system.
multiple appointments with a number of agencies. One
interviewee described having to meet with multiple
services on release and the challenge this presented on
a limited income.
“I had to take money off my dad for bus fares”
(Interviewee)
Stakeholders also described the impact of this when
trying to engage people in support services.
“Well if they have no money, if they have to use
public transport to get to me although I can refund
it they can’t get to me as they have no money to
get to me if they are living on crisis loans and things
like that”. (Stakeholder)30
For those who were rough sleeping and for those who
were part of the ‘hidden homeless population’ or sofa
surfing, the extreme insecurity of their housing created
further barriers when applying for benefits.
Due to the lack of income, many interviewees reported
having to apply for Crisis Loans. These are repaid
through deductions from benefits, which creates
further pressures in managing a low income. One
interviewee spoke of having almost ten per cent of
their benefits deducted until the loan was paid off,
leaving them really struggling. Indeed, the transition
period from release grant to benefits often resulted in
interviewees accruing substantial debts as a result of
the administrative process on leaving prison. These are
often added to previous debts, exacerbating financial
pressures.
One participant recalled:
“£9 a week for five weeks to pay it off but because
they haven’t got your benefits sorted out you have
to get a Crisis Loan”. (Interviewee)
Another participant discussed having to survive on a
series of multiple crisis loans: and the effects of this.
“ I had to get quite a few Crisis Loans particularly
with being just out the jail… the council had
dumped all my stuff and when I got out the prison,
I got out basically with what I had”. (Interviewee)
Losing personal belongings when imprisoned causes
major problems on release. Research conducted by
Ross Howie Associates (2004) highlighted examples of
individuals needing Community Care Grants to replace
belongings disposed of during their time in prison.31
Stress and anxiety was a key feature of this period
for interviewees. Having limited income was difficult
for many in a period where there would often have
28 “Scottish Prison Service, written evidence to the Prison Commission, November 2007. The low estimateincludes only annual operating expenditure on prisons
(e.g. staff salaries and services like food and electricity). It excludes, for example, capital charges and the cost of transporting prisoners to court and between prisons”
cited in Scottish Prisons Commission (2008) Scotland’s Choice Report of the Scottish Prison Commission , [online] Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/
Doc/230180/0062359.pdf m[Accessed: 01/4/2011].
28 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
29 Citizen Advice (nd) Leaving Prison [online] Available at http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/p_leaving_prison.pdf
30 Service users would be reimbursed for transport at meetings but may require money upfront. .
31 Scottish Executive Social Research (2004) ‘The Provision of Housing Advice to Prisoners in Scotland: An Evaluation of the Projects funded by the Rough Sleepers Initiative’.
www.povertyalliance.org 29
One interviewee described the humiliating process of
applying for a Crisis Loan for food, electricity and gas
and feminine hygiene products:
“he just wanted to make me feel small”.
(Interviewee)
Stakeholders saw the experience in similar terms:
“they have what they are released with , that
doesn’t last too long and it can take at the minute
six to eight weeks for benefits to come through…
so there’s all the added humiliation of going
for crisis loans and having to beg for money”.
(Stakeholder)
Lack of a bank account or difficulty in getting one
due to identification issues presented problems. For
example benefits are paid into a post office account
or a bank account. Stakeholders noted the difficulties
associated with providing bank accounts for their
clients. One stakeholder highlighted the experience of
multiple interactions with a bank in order to enable an
individual to open a basic bank account.
“ they are just dismissed even when written on
verified by A, B , C and D at a verified address
, its no no we need a birth certificate and again
depending on who the bank is and who they deal
with at the bank or the post office the goals change
all the time”. (Stakeholder)
Financial exclusion
One stakeholder highlighted Grand Central Savings32
as good practice in setting up basic bank accounts. The
issue of financial exclusion has been widely researched.
For example, studies by Pratt and Jones (2009)33 and
Bath and Edgar (2010)34 discuss the serious implications
of financial exclusion and the resulting barriers for those
with criminal convictions.
Financial exclusion affected interviewees in a number
of ways. These included being unable to afford, or to
afford to use, mobile phones, problems obtaining basic
bank accounts and lack of affordable credit.
Affordable credit was almost unavailable. While one
interviewee described being able to access a loan
through the credit union, others were restricted to
borrowing money from family and friends.
As noted above, maintaining contact with services
and families and friends was crucial for individuals on
their release from prison. This however was not always
possible due to financial exclusion.
Other methods of accessing money, was raised by
one stakeholder who discussed the problems of loan
sharks targeting vulnerable people such as those
leaving prison. They argued that certain types of
accommodation such as hostels were vulnerable to this.
In addition, it was highlighted during discussions with
stakeholders that individuals may often be coming out
facing previous debts, thus compounding their financial
exclusion.
Re-establishing and maintaining contact with family
and friends was hampered by rarely having credit on
mobile phones. Some participants acknowledged that
a contract mobile phone was a far cheaper option but
could not get this owing to a lack of identification and
living in temporary accommodation. So the only way of
keeping in touch was through ‘Pay as You Go’ mobile
phones, a much more expensive tariff, and for which
they often had no money to buy a top-up:.
“Because no one would give me a contract phone”.
(Interviewee)
Fuel and food poverty
A person is living in fuel poverty when they have
to spend more than 10% of their income on
heating. Participants had problems in heating their
accommodation in an affordable way. Fuel poverty was
a key issue, with many reporting spending more than
10% of their income on heating bills. Electricity and gas
in temporary accommodation were paid for through
pre-payment meters, with residents being given no
alternatives. Pre-payment meters often have higher
tariffs than any of the other options such as regular card
payments, Direct Debits or quarterly payments.
In addition, several interviewees stayed in properties
which relied on more expensive electric heating, such
as storage heaters. Several participants were distressed
and anxious:
“ I’ve got this electric heater that I have just got to
switch on just to heat the place up and I have to
put it on and its baltic in that flat. Its freezing and
that electric heating is just chewing the money”.
(Interviewee)
Participants discussed problems in affording other
essentials, especially food. This was a problem
particularly before the first benefit payment was
received. One participant spoke of being offered
a food parcel by a service provider but feeling
embarrassed that they needed it.
Poor facilities adversely affected the type of food
bought. Some who were in temporary accommodation
with limited cooking facilities became dependent on
purchasing takeaways. Several participants (including
one who had been sleeping rough) discussed having
to get food from family. One participant had to used a
Community Care Grant not to buy furniture but to buy
food in an emergency:
“and I have barely got enough to feed myself if
I need to eat something but I am waiting for this
community care grant my saviour kind of thing
other than that is impossible”. (Interviewee)
Several participants talked of the methods they used to
cope with this:
“I’m scared of using the heaters as its burns
up nearly £3 a day and I have just not got it”.
(Interviewee)
“I am actually opening the box and turning
everything off at the mains to make sure that
nothing is getting done and making sure everything
is turned off”.(Interviewee)
Stakeholders also highlighted the serious problems
people faced with heating bills and the lengths they
would go to in avoiding putting on their heating:
“One guy at the moment has no electricity , no
food has to go and sit in the library or a bookies to
try and keep warm or sits in the house with loads of
clothes on”. (Interviewee)
32 For further information on this project see http://www.grandcentralsavings.org.uk/
33 Revolving Doors Agency (2004) Hand to Mouth The impact of poverty and financial exclusion on adults with multiple needs , [online] Available at: http://www.
revolving-doors.org.uk/documents/hand-to-mouth/[Accessed: 28/3/2011].
34 Bath, C .Edgar K(2011) Time is Money Financial Responsibility after Prison , [online]
Available at: http://www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/financialinclusion/timeismoney.pdf [Accessed: 28/3/2011].
30 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 31
Moving on to a permanent tenancy: support to
settle in
After a period in temporary accommodation,
individuals will be offered permanent housing. This
offer will depend on a number of factors including
the areas chosen by the applicant, the availability of
housing in each area and any special circumstances
or needs disclosed by the applicant. The time taken
to be offered permanent accommodation varies. One
participant had been on the waiting list for housing
for several years prior to prison. Timescales within
the sample for this study (each of whom had been
assessed as homeless and in priority need) ranged from
six weeks to several months. Some interviewees had
already received offers of permanent accommodation;
others were still waiting. One interviewee had signed
up for a permanent tenancy prior to their last sentence
and described the help and assistance they received in
getting furniture.
For those interviewees who were current recipients of
a permanent tenancy this brought different challenges
such as how appropriate the accommodation was for
their needs.
The tenancy options given to participants had been
broadly appropriate to their needs and requirements
but this was not always so. One participant described
being offered accommodation not appropriate for
their medical condition, but of feeling unable to refuse
this as they would then be classified as intentionally
homeless. Interviewees spoke about having to be
flexible in making decisions. One participant was
offered a flat in an area which they had not requested.
However, on moving into the accommodation, found
that it was well located for transport, for visiting family
and for engaging with support services.
One stakeholder spoke in detail about the transition
to permanent accommodation, emphasising the
need for practical support with furniture and support
with independent living skills in order that someone
maintains their tenancy.
“When they move into their own tenancy that’s
when the problems start, no furniture, have to
apply for grants”. (Stakeholder)
Stakeholders emphasised the cost of failing to support
people adequately, and highlighted an example of a
person being provided with short term support when
long term support was required, with the tenancy failing
as a result. The challenges of coping with bills and
isolation were also highlighted
SECTION 5:
DISCUSSION:
IMPROVING POLICY AND PRACTICE
“get support in short term but don’t get bills for
three to four months , tenancy support not there
when bills come in”. (Stakeholder)
“ its an isolating experience where they are on
their own and they don’t want to associate with the
wrong crowd”. (Stakeholder)
Stakeholders also stressed that territorial issues were
vital and that permanent housing would fail if it was in
an area where a service user would feel unsafe.
On moving in, the main barrier to making a house
into a home was the cost of furniture. Experiences
varied across the sample. One participant discussed
applying for a Community Care Grant (CCG). This grant
is provided to assist with a community care needs and
can be issued in a wide range of circumstances.35 This
participant had spent the Community Care Grant on
what they deemed as priority purchases of a cooker
and washing machine, leaving no money for any other
items. This left the participant dependent on a tenancy
housing support worker for basic furniture such as beds
and on family support for carpets. Another participant
discussed moving into property which was partially
furnished and acknowledged how helpful this had been
at the start of the tenancy.
35 Department of Work and Pensions (2010) Community Care Grants , [online] Available at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/specialist-guides/technical-guidance/
sb16-a-guide-to-thesocial/community-care-grants/#howmuch[Accessed: 12/3/2011].
32 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 33
Summary
This section looks at ways of improving the homeless
service for ex-prisoners.
• Personalisation of service support was seen as crucial
in temporary accommodation and in the transition to
permanent tenancy.
• Funding provision for support services was also
highlighted as a key concern.
Improving service provision
The research asked interviewees and stakeholders
about improving policy and practice. In some cases
interviewees found it difficult to articulate what
they would change, perhaps because they are
unaccustomed to being asked questions like this.
Interviewees did speak of the need to end stigma and
discrimination, furnish permanent tenancies, improve
housing availability and provide effective advocacy and
support.
Several participants reported feeling stigmatised for
having been in prison and felt that attitudes towards exprisoners were in need of considerable improvement.
“ I think sometimes people, they see a drug addict,
they see alcoholics , they see mental health and
they are always quick to label them, and I think
that’s wrong”. (Interviewee)
As discussed in the previous section, participants
described the benefits of starting a permanent tenancy
with some furniture. Some interviewees spoke of
previous experiences where they had been provided
with starter packs of basic household goods or had
been permitted to take bedding from temporary
accommodation scatter flats to their permanent
flats. One interviewee discussed people in their area
being furnished with white goods on moving into a
permanent tenancy.
Other core themes emerged around demand for
housing and the options offered to people and the
time waiting to be offered a permanent tenancy. It
was acknowledged that there was shortage of housing
in many areas and that this also affected the general
population. They realised that this shortage went some
way towards explaining the limited options offered
and the delay in offers of permanent housing. One
participant highlighted the issue of older ex-prisoners.
“Older ones have got more needs, they have got a
lot more needs they have lived their lives, they’ve
got families …..And they will want to get settled
into life a lot quicker”. (Interviewee)
There is a clear connection between the need for social
housing options for ex-offenders and housing needs
for the general population. It is therefore important to
locate the problems that ex-offenders may experience
in this broader context. This is particularly important for
those who are advocating on behalf of ex-offenders.
Interviewees were clear on the need for advocacy
services to help them deal with the homeless
process and for support services on release to allow
rehabilitation. The period immediately after release was
seen as a particularly testing time. Stakeholders discussed in depth where service
provision could be improved, this focused on issues
wider than housing provision, but was viewed as
interlinked. Discussion covered both pre and post
release of prisoners into the community setting.
During a sentence a prisoner must be given thorough
preparation for release, including help with literacy
and numeracy, as well as training in independent living
skills such as budgeting and coping with daily life. A
smoother transition to benefits on leaving prison was
seen as crucial in avoiding destitution and debt.
Improvements to the housing service focused on
increasing the availability of housing. Housing staff
were seen as under great pressure. Demand for social
housing was seen as high and increasing across local
authority areas. Stakeholders agreed with interviewees
on the importance of sensitive housing allocation, with
a variety of accommodation types and areas being on
offer. It was argued that offering applicants housing
in their preferred area would reduce the number of
failed tenancies, with a discussion of the cost savings
involved in this. Failed tenancies represent significant
costs to local authorities through having to re-house
households elsewhere and in properties remaining
empty for short times, as well as any costs of removing
and storing belongings and other housing support.
Again, it is important for those advocating on behalf
of ex-offenders and their housing needs articulate
their demands in the context of current concerns with
preventative spending and early intervention.
Stakeholders were quite clear that housing support
was equally important when someone is in temporary
accommodation (prior to being in permanent housing)
especially when applicants wait a long time for
permanent housing. Greater provision of supported
accommodation was seen as crucial for those facing
complex and multiple issues. There was also a concern
with the “hidden homeless” and the wide-ranging
barriers this (often ignored) group faced.
People leaving prison with complex needs such as dual
addictions (drug and alcohol misuse) pose particular
challenges for support agencies but it was felt that
significant improvements had been made in terms
of multi-agency working. However one stakeholder
argued that some support agencies would not work
with people who were actively misusing substances36.
Another stakeholder agreed on the importance of an
open door policy to those who were dual addicted.
Stakeholders were keen that agencies learn from
best practice. One stressed the benefits of greater
service user involvement and participation: often those
experiencing poor service are well-placed to suggest
the changes needed. A stakeholder also argued that
hospital discharge protocols, which link ex-patients
seamlessly into community services, could provide a
useful model.
It was also acknowledged that ensuring those released
from prison avoided poverty and poor housing would
help reduce reoffending. But, additionally, more money
was needed for offence-focused work to challenge
deep-seated behaviour, both in prison and in the
community.
Future challenges
Future challenges identified during the research
included funding pressures, the changing welfare state
and harsh public attitudes to people leaving prison.
Funding pressures were a key concern. Increasing use
of short term funding for service providers made long
term planning very difficult. It was anticipated that
funding cuts in services would have an impact on the
support people released from prison would receive.
Several commented that these cuts could lead to an
increase in reoffending rates and rehabilitating both
short term and long term offenders as ex-prisoners
become more vulnerable and isolated with less support
being available for rehabilitation. The cost implications
of failing to reduce reoffending were highlighted as a
key reason for support projects to receive continuation
of funding.
It is clear from the evidence that has been gathered
that the better integration of the many services that
ex-offenders rely on is an important issue. In particular
improving information sharing across services was
recognised as an important but essential step that
service providers must look to address.
36 Although this was not discussed this was because of the risk assessment procedures for example organisations prohibited staff to actively work with those currently
known to be using substances.
34 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 35
As one stakeholder stated
“They are storing trouble; they are storing a much
larger issue for future years because these people
aren’t going to go anywhere, they are not going to
disappear this problem is not going to go away”.
(Stakeholder)
Changes to the current benefits system were a key
issue. The forthcoming tightening of rules on Housing
Benefit were seen as a particularly problematic area. In
terms of pressures on housing provision, the changes
within the welfare system to housing benefit would
also place increased pressure on housing in relation to
housing availability and stock. Concerns were raised
that it was difficult to anticipate the full impact of the
changes proposed and how it would impact on an
already stretched housing system.
SECTION 6:
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
There were concerns raised on the wider changes
to the welfare system, particularly to Employment
Support Allowance (ESA). Stakeholders discussed the
assessment process for benefits such as employment
and support allowance and discussed the additional
workload that resulted in for service providers as a
result of many applications requiring appeals and
provided example of this.
“Benefits are under review…these reviews can take
months, people cannot afford that”. (Stakeholder)
Regarding policy targeting offenders it was felt that
public attitudes and perceptions were key drivers of
policy and work was required to educate the public on
the complexity of factors which lead to offending.
“I think the biggest challenge for services that work
with offenders is to have more balls in terms of
educating the public about offenders there are a lot
of myths about and not all offenders are posing a
risk to you and me”. (Stakeholder)
Employability was also discussed reintegrating people
into employment is extremely challenging in the current
economic climate with high unemployment levels (and
extremely high levels of youth unemployment).It was
argued that services should be targeted around reskilling people to assist the transition to employment.
36 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
37
The research report provides a snapshot of the
issues being faced by a group of people who have
experienced prison and been homeless on release. It
outlines multiple and complex barriers to resettlement
faced by a vulnerable group.
Homelessness was a crucial barrier facing many
people upon release and experiences of temporary
accommodation illustrated a myriad of issues including
unsuitable accommodation, lack of support services
and the difficulties for agencies in engaging over the
longer term with those in temporary accommodation.
Homeless ex-prisoners in temporary accommodation
unquestionably form a vulnerable group, characterized
by multiple support needs related to the effects of
institutionalisation, drug or alcohol misuse and mental
health problems.
Dealing with this requires co-coordinated approaches
of personalized support and advocacy within the
housing and criminal justice systems. Stakeholders
spoke extensively of the cost implication of reoffending
and the impact on society if people are not supported
to reintegrate into community life. Interviewees
reinforced the importance of personalised support and
advocacy within the housing system.
The big issue remains how to deliver a better service
when public finances are constrained and grant funding
limited. On the other hand, there are costs involved
in poor housing and support services. Stakeholders
spoke extensively of the high costs of reoffending and
the wider impact on society if ex-prisoners who are
homeless fail to reintegrate into community life.
On the basis of these findings, the researchers make
some policy recommendations for those working in
the field of providing housing support to ex offenders.
The aim is encourage debate about the issues affecting
people who have experienced prison and how they can
be tackled in order to reduce social exclusion and to
help support the work of reintegration of people who
have experienced prison.
The following policy recommendations are made based
on the research evidence:
• There is a need for more advocacy services for
ex offenders during the transition from prison to
community. To ensure that they engage with
agencies and receive a good service.
• The use of hostel accommodation for ex-offenders
should be phased out in favour of alternative
temporary accommodation such as temporary furnished flats. Hostel accommodation is often very
unsuitable for individuals leaving prison, especially for
those with drug and alcohol problems.
• More supported accommodation is required for
those with multiple and complex needs.
• Where possible, claims for welfare benefits should
be initiated in prison so the benefits are available
upon release.
• Support should be provided for a longer period
to facilitate the transition to permanent housing,
with support reduced on a planned basis to avoid
dependency.
• Support services and practice should be
standardized across local authorities, with best
practice being adopted.
• Support must be individualized and person-centered,
ensuring that specific needs are recognized. Social
housing provision needs to be increased across local
authorities.
• More work is required to raise public awareness of
the issues faced by people who have experienced
prison.
• Further research is needed to explore the housing
advice and guidance within prisons.
• Further research is needed to explore the housing
experiences of former prisoners on release and the
impact of this on accessing other service provision and on promoting or hampering rehabilitation.
Please Note: This diagram is for
illustration purposes only
38 EPIC RESEARCH REPORT
www.povertyalliance.org 39
OUT OF JAIL, BUT STILL NOT FREE
Experiences of temporary accommodation on
leaving prison
This report is based on the views and experiences of
ex-offenders living in Central Scotland who took part
in a participatory research project throughout 2010.
Issues around housing were identified as central to
the challenges that many offenders experience when
they leave prison. The report highlights the many
barriers ex-offenders face when trying to negotiate
their way through a complex and at times confusing
system.
This report has been produced as part of the Big
Lottery funded Evidence Participation, Change
(EPIC) project which aims to put participation at the
heart of anti-poverty policy making in Scotland. It
brings together people with experience of poverty,
community and voluntary organisations and policy
makers to discuss and find better solutions to the
problems our society faces. For more information
about EPIC visit:
www.povertyalliance.org/projects
The Poverty Alliance
162 Buchanan Street
Glasgow G1 2LL
Tel: 0141 353 0440
Fax: 0141 353 0686
Email: [email protected]
www.povertyalliance.org
The Poverty Alliance is a Company
Limited by Guarantee
Registered in Scotland No. 136689
Registered Office:
162 Buchanan Street, Glasgow G1 2LL
The Poverty Alliance is recognised
as a charity by the Inland Revenue
Reference No. ED872/91/JP SCO 19926